514 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Yeah, there is really too much good drama in ME3 for it to be remotely justifiable to call it a mindless GoW shootout. People are perfectly valid in saying that auto-dialogue rendered the game into a movie, and that this shift is extremely objectionable, but the movie was too well written in too many places for it to be reducible to a shallow shoot-em-up.

[Cakefirsto]

Armass81 wrote...

"If they implemented the Indoc theory for the game it would solve a lot of unanswered questions and plot holes."

Can you put up those questions and plotholes, for kicks? Maybe we can do something about them.

There is a part 2 aswell. Enjoy.

Also I might add I did actually have parts I enjoyed in the game, very few of them. One of them being Tuchanka, Vigils theme can make anything feel special.

Modifié par Cakefirsto, 03 février 2013 - 11:35 .

[Reorte]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah, there is really too much good drama in ME3 for it to be remotely justifiable to call it a mindless GoW shootout. People are perfectly valid in saying that auto-dialogue rendered the game into a movie, and that this shift is extremely objectionable, but the movie was too well written in too many places for it to be reducible to a shallow shoot-em-up.

What gameplay was there apart from shooting? Some fetch quests. The rest isn't really much other than interludes between the shooting.

[Robhuzz]

The ending is what's going to stick the most when you think back about the game, making it the most important part of the story. When you mess that up so badly the players will start looking at the game more negatively, more easily picking up other flaws that would otherwise be ignored or brushed aside.

I'll admit I have a wide taste when it comes to games and I wasn't bothered by the crappy main plot at first because I was looking forward towards seeing the final conclusion. If that had been decent at least, most of ME3's (imo) bigger mess ups (auto dialogue, forced emotion, boring fetch quests) would've been forgiven. The ending was just so ridiculously bad I started reflecting on the rest of ME3 and realized it really wasn't that great a game after all.

[Dr_Extrem]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah, there is really too much good drama in ME3 for it to be remotely justifiable to call it a mindless GoW shootout. People are perfectly valid in saying that auto-dialogue rendered the game into a movie, and that this shift is extremely objectionable, but the movie was too well written in too many places for it to be reducible to a shallow shoot-em-up.

thats quite right.

me3 is not enough shooter, to call it a GoW-shootout - point. but does it still stand for mass effect 1 and 2 story telling and style? i doubt that. this game is a middle ground and it reached the crossroad.

its not a mindless shooter - yet. if bioware does not change it way of story telling back to what it was (bg, me 1+2, da:o), it will produce mindless shooter-movies in the future.

the story of me3 was not what we were used to get. retcons, linearity, autodialogue and ooc-moments made it hard for me, to like it.

the generic superweapon plot is cheap by definition - but it could have been made spectecular and deep in its presentation. missions where we are ordered to find additional plans/parts/pieces/personal, would have been a nice golden thread for the story and would have given us insight into the device, we are building all our hopes on.
atm we got a giant mistery-gun - really .. nobody knows anything about this piece of tech and nobody has a clue, what it does. instead of finding out what it is, what it does and improving it, we solve the "daddy-issues" of the several races. thats the mass effect 2 plot (gather "man-power" for the final mission) on a galactic scale. we had that before.


but even the subpar story could have ended satisfactory. mass effect 3 aimed on emotions only - science and interlectually interesting plots are not the focus anymore. the only two loose ends are geht vs. quariens and genophage - the last remnants of mass effects glory. the reason that those parts of the game are good, lies in their origin - mass effect 1+2. the opportunities to raise interlectually stimulating questions are ignored - shepards condition i.e.:
- "is shepard still shepard or only an advanced vi?"
- "does it matter?"
- "do our actions and memories define us or our nature?"
- "how would the companions react on this?" 
that would have been more interesting, than the lousy attempt to force ptsd and ooc-emotions on shepard.
if the game is focussing on emotions, you have to give the people a chance to end the game emotionally satisfying. the endings do not achieve that for a lot of people.


an emotionally satisfying ending, would not "save" this game (its still a very good game - not just bioware-good).but it would make it a replay-candidate. star wars is not deep as well and i have watched the original movies too often to count it - just like many other movies.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 03 février 2013 - 11:57 .

[FlamingBoy]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah, there is really too much good drama in ME3 for it to be remotely justifiable to call it a mindless GoW shootout. People are perfectly valid in saying that auto-dialogue rendered the game into a movie, and that this shift is extremely objectionable, but the movie was too well written in too many places for it to be reducible to a shallow shoot-em-up.

I think the gears of war criticism was mostly in relation to the shooting gameplay and not the narrative (albeit both games end on a pulse that "kills the enemy")

[Jadebaby]

Brhino wrote...

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

quote of the week.

[Jadebaby]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah, there is really too much good drama in ME3 for it to be remotely justifiable to call it a mindless GoW shootout. People are perfectly valid in saying that auto-dialogue rendered the game into a movie, and that this shift is extremely objectionable, but the movie was too well written in too many places for it to be reducible to a shallow shoot-em-up.

I think the gears of war criticism was mostly in relation to the shooting gameplay and not the narrative (albeit both games end on a pulse that "kills the enemy")

Exactly, it had that familiar.. "now you have to shoot your way down this corridor to progress the story."

Obviously ME2 and even ME1 to an extent had this, but they did it so well it didn't feel like so much of a grind. Not to mention that in ME3 half the enemies you face are Cerberus, and half the locations they are at is like "wtf?"

For eg: Surkesh.

[Dr_Extrem]

Jadebaby wrote...

Brhino wrote...

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

quote of the week.

yes .. its almost signature worthy.

[Dr_Extrem]

Jadebaby wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah, there is really too much good drama in ME3 for it to be remotely justifiable to call it a mindless GoW shootout. People are perfectly valid in saying that auto-dialogue rendered the game into a movie, and that this shift is extremely objectionable, but the movie was too well written in too many places for it to be reducible to a shallow shoot-em-up.

I think the gears of war criticism was mostly in relation to the shooting gameplay and not the narrative (albeit both games end on a pulse that "kills the enemy")

Exactly, it had that familiar.. "now you have to shoot your way down this corridor to progress the story."

Obviously ME2 and even ME1 to an extent had this, but they did it so well it didn't feel like so much of a grind. Not to mention that in ME3 half the enemies you face are Cerberus, and half the locations they are at is like "wtf?"

For eg: Surkesh.

surkesh at least makes sense .. somehow. sabotaging the genophage fits to the anti-alien direction of cerberus. after the war, a strong krogan presence could threaten humanity. 

but the coup on the citadel? ...what is there to get the attention of tim? does he need some fishes for his tank? if the reapers wanted the citadel, they would just take it - they would not need cerberus for it.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 03 février 2013 - 12:21 .

[ElementL09]

I really just judge Mass Effect 3 based on the other games I played in the trilogy. It isn't just the ending (which honestly confused me and had me thinking I made a terrible choice, only to find out that my choice could be considered the best ending option), its parts of the game. Some parts of the game are great while others kinda lack. Also as a fan of the game, I think I had a high expetaction of my War Assets being shown in the game. Collecting War Assets, I was just thinking that I would see them in action, like my Geth Primes or my decesion to cure the Genophage or seeing the Rachni (I personally felt the Rachni mission in this game pandered to much to people who didn't spare the queen or didn't even play Mass Effect, I feel like people who spared the queen got the snuffed a bit).

I personally didn't just judge Mass Effect 3 because of its ending, I really judged it based on what I expected out of the game after I played Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Plus with it being a Trilogy thats heavily story based, basing judgment on the third game of the trilogy to me seems just as valid as judging a game for anything else' being the journey or destination, gameplay or graphics, characters or whatever, it is the third and final game of the trilogy.


-Unless they pull a Halo and release another trilogy.

[Jadebaby]

The Catalyst...

[Dr_Extrem]

Jadebaby wrote...

The Catalyst...

?!? .. i am confused ...

[Indy_S]

Is it established Cerberus knew about the Catalyst before Thessia? I thought they learnt what we did through some kind of non-asking-nicely method with Vendetta.

[jkflipflopDAO]

I really hope that this last DLC fixes the ending. If not, Mass Effect will always be remembered as "that series with the sh!tty ending". Which is really sad when you consider people were calling it "This generation's 'Star Wars'" before this.

[Archonsg]

Jadebaby wrote...

Brhino wrote...

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

quote of the week.

"Shot to hell."

[Indy_S]

The odds are against this last DLC fixing the ending. It will forever be "This generation's 'Star Wars' prequels".

[Archonsg]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

I really hope that this last DLC fixes the ending. If not, Mass Effect will always be remembered as "that series with the sh!tty ending". Which is really sad when you consider people were calling it "This generation's 'Star Wars'" before this.

It was, right on target up to those last 10 mins.
If ME3 was Starwars and the Ending "Luke Skywalker", Luke decided to ignore Ben's suggestion to "use the force" during that trench run.

Endings are why we made the journey, otherwise why make the journey at all?

[Reorte]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

{rest of post snipped to keep quoting down although I'm replying to it all}

an emotionally satisfying ending, would not "save" this game (its still a very good game - not just bioware-good).but it would make it a replay-candidate. star wars is not deep as well and i have watched the original movies too often to count it - just like many other movies.

A very good post. As long as people are enjoying the ride you can get away with a fair amount of stupidity, although of course it's far, far better without it and the more you have the more likely you are to step over the line that kills suspension of disbelief.

I'd say that even then though the end has to rise to higher standards because it's what will still be in peoples' minds when they've stopped going along for the ride and turned the console / computer off. At that point if a few moments' thought starts making people think "How stupid" it'll tarnish their final memory although when it comes to ME3 its lack of any reason for anything happening for any reason other than a completely arbitrary "The plot says so!" at the end broke suspension of disbelief before that stage and I'm still shaking my head in amazement that some people are not only not bothered about that but can't even see the flaws.

It's said that first impressions are important but last ones are too.

[eddieoctane]

RedBeardJim wrote...
Shepard has to go through security checks in ME2 and ME3 because of the heightened security precautions set up *because of Sovereign's attack*. I certainly didn't have to go through any scanners in ME1.

No, but you did have to enter the Citadel through C-Sec. To assume there's no security system between there and the dockign bay is foolish.

[Kel Riever]

Another great journey where the ending didn't matter:

 

Modifié par Kel Riever, 03 février 2013 - 03:40 .

[Xamufam]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

oh brother wrote...

I understand people having problems with a game (I had some too), I don't understand the incredible level of anger, that has not mellowed over almost a year. Like people giving ME3 a score of zero on metacritic. A score of, say, 5 - I won't have a problem with. But zero, or close to zero? If those people had not played Me or Me2, and were then given Me3 to review, there is no way they would score it so low.

Those scores of 0s are used to counter the morons who give it 10s.  Because quite frankly you can't be very smart if you give a game 10/10, no game that as ever come out was perfect.  A perfect game will never happen.

And as for the topic, I judge Mass Effect based on the whole game, it was not as good as the previous entries in the series.  And IMO that hurts the game more than the badly written endings, over time people should get better at their jobs, not worse.

I view it like this.  ME3 in my eyes started out as what I hoped would be a ten.  Not that it would be perfect, but that I figured it would be great where it needed to be and would be fine in the other places.  It could have ended up that way if they had even just created a rather predictable huge suicide-mission like ending.  It didn't have to do too much for me to have let it keep that ten.  But it was up there high on a pedestal.  I didn't go all crazy over a beginning that seemed lacking.  I didn't go all crazy over auto-dialogue that had be be a viewer and didn't allow me to play the game.  I didn't go all crazy over the lack of choice or the repeated use of bad dialogue or even some dialogue that was a repeat of earlier dialogue.  I didn't go all crazy over the fact that things at times were not chronologically correct (for instance Liara seemed to lose track of her relationship to Shepard). 

I didn't go all crazy over the head twisting bugs and other ones that still exist where characters look like they're on drugs and staring off into space, or where characters are talking but not even on screen (there's a blank wall).  I didn't go all crazy over the inane fetch quests that I always thought were stupid.  I didn't go all crazy over forced MP.  I didn't go all crazy over the stupid forced connection to the kid on Earth and in the nightmares and conversations. 

I didn't go all crazy over the whole inane situation of the galaxy seeing huge monsters bent on their destruction forcing Shepard to be their lackey for selfish reasons that would be moot if the huge monsters won.  I didn't go all crazy over the inanity of Priority Earth and some of the other Priorities, especially the one with Kai (do I excite you, baby) Leng.  I didn't go all crazy over the idiocy of Cerberus and more Cerberus and moar Cerberus.  And there was a heck of a lot more I didn't go all crazy over, because I embraced the good stuff and kept saying "well that was cool"-about maybe a dozen times, and I believed that was good enough and could overlook all the other stuff.

Then, I got to the ending and it was and is so bad that all that other stuff started to bother me in a way I could not overlook.  I'd disliked the kid and the ending made it worse.  I'd disliked the other stuff and now they stood out like a sore thumb.  So, a game that started out as a sure ten out of ten lost all those positive points.  I can't say that a dozen positive things makes up for all those other negatives and the huge negative that is the ending.

This

[Twilight_Princess]

3DandBeyond wrote...


I view it like this.  ME3 in my eyes started out as what I hoped would be a ten.  Not that it would be perfect, but that I figured it would be great where it needed to be and would be fine in the other places.  It could have ended up that way if they had even just created a rather predictable huge suicide-mission like ending.  It didn't have to do too much for me to have let it keep that ten.  But it was up there high on a pedestal.  I didn't go all crazy over a beginning that seemed lacking.  I didn't go all crazy over auto-dialogue that had be be a viewer and didn't allow me to play the game.  I didn't go all crazy over the lack of choice or the repeated use of bad dialogue or even some dialogue that was a repeat of earlier dialogue.  I didn't go all crazy over the fact that things at times were not chronologically correct (for instance Liara seemed to lose track of her relationship to Shepard). 

I didn't go all crazy over the head twisting bugs and other ones that still exist where characters look like they're on drugs and staring off into space, or where characters are talking but not even on screen (there's a blank wall).  I didn't go all crazy over the inane fetch quests that I always thought were stupid.  I didn't go all crazy over forced MP.  I didn't go all crazy over the stupid forced connection to the kid on Earth and in the nightmares and conversations. 

I didn't go all crazy over the whole inane situation of the galaxy seeing huge monsters bent on their destruction forcing Shepard to be their lackey for selfish reasons that would be moot if the huge monsters won.  I didn't go all crazy over the inanity of Priority Earth and some of the other Priorities, especially the one with Kai (do I excite you, baby) Leng.  I didn't go all crazy over the idiocy of Cerberus and more Cerberus and moar Cerberus.  And there was a heck of a lot more I didn't go all crazy over, because I embraced the good stuff and kept saying "well that was cool"-about maybe a dozen times, and I believed that was good enough and could overlook all the other stuff.

Then, I got to the ending and it was and is so bad that all that other stuff started to bother me in a way I could not overlook.  I'd disliked the kid and the ending made it worse.  I'd disliked the other stuff and now they stood out like a sore thumb.  So, a game that started out as a sure ten out of ten lost all those positive points.  I can't say that a dozen positive things makes up for all those other negatives and the huge negative that is the ending.

I think my only complaint during the first playthrough was "hmmm...wish there were more middle options" and I recall being a bit let down there was no trial. But that was it, honest to god I  didn't notice all the negative aspects I notice now and yes I think it was the bad ending that took those blinders off.

It would have been a 10 out of 10 for me if the plot didn't take such a giant nose dive at the finish. I'm sure of it. Even now, I still can't wrap my head around how BADLY it ended because it seemed like there was an effort made to make the worst conclusion possible. I wanted to finish that last game with the same "F*ck yeah!" Feeling I had with the previous two games. Now with the EC its more "I guess things are ok...*sigh*" and for me that's not enough to do another run.

[Maxster_]

[quote]The Interloper wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
Like C-Sec would allow Saren to operate citadel control. Or Citadel fleet would allow a suspicious alien ship to dock.[/quote]

Saren, one of the council's most trusted (and feared) agents, couldn't have pulled rank and bluffed his way into the control room of his own base? Also, you forget that the fleet that Sovy fought in ME1 had largely been assembled in response to the threat of Saren in the first place.
[/quote]
His base is not council chamber.
And one spectre is not a threat to a C-Sec. He would be killed very fast.
And council fleet existed always, at least from time of rachni war and krogan rebellion. C-Sec even had some space forces, as is council task force led by Destiny Ascension.
As for Shepard's warnings, council fleet and additional forces were spread across several relays.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
Entire premise of ME2 makes absolutely no sense. They wanted to create a reaper from humans, and humans only, and majority of human population is on Earth, protected by almost entire Systems Alliance fleet.
And you saying, that a lone transport, who run away from one defence turret, and easily destroyed by a frigate, is a threat to an entire Systems Alliance fleet?
This excuse of a plot not only completely idiotic, it also displays Harbringer as a moron.
[/quote]

The implication is that the collectors did not intend to hit earth until the Reapers actually arrived and were around to help. They were just getting a head start on the HR by hitting small targets they could handle without backup. And the Dark Energy ending at least gave a reason as to why the collectors couldn't just wait a few years to start. I agree that Harbinger makes questionable strategetic decisions at points but that's a lesser issue.
[/quote]
This doesn't make any sense.
This means that entire ME2 story is meaningless.
They could never finish said reaper, there is no point for Shepard to fight them other than to save some minor colonies(major like Terra Nova a protected by fleet).
This only possible because Systems Alliance went full retard for no reason. Collectors were never a threat to SA, there is no reason ME2 even existing.

And there is no Dark Energy plot. None.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
No. Dark energy was completely dropped in ME2.
And ME2 is just meaningless.
[/quote]

With all due respect, what the heck are you talking about? Dark energy clearly was set up, at least in part, in ME2, with the human reaper and Haestrom. Then it was dropped in ME3, which switched over to the synthetic nonsense. That rendered ME2 meaningless. Like I said, the fault lies with ME3.
[/quote]
There is no Dark Energy plot.
Stop presenting your headcanon as a fact.
ME2 story makes no sense even without ME3, so failure of ME2 story is ME2 fail, not ME3.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...Sure, if you like nonsensical drama. I bet your favorite mission is a Priority:Earth
[/quote]

I understand if you want to disagree, but your attempts at condescention and belittlement are only hurting yourself. I dislike Priority Earth very much and explained, in detail, why it is clearly distinct from all other instances of weak writing in the series, and why I forgive those but not Priority Earth. You have done almost nothing to address that other then vaguely stating "You're wrong" and your insinuation that I like Priority Earth strongly implies that you completely missed my point.
[/quote]
Lol.
Object to what, exactly? Your baseless statement that garbage writing in Tuchanka arc, which led to nonsensical exposition is insignificant?
Same as is in Priority:Earth, so what's the difference? Because you like that mission, you are willing to ignore nonsense and garbage writing.
And saying that i must also.
No.
[quote]
Also if a few vague or questionable details about the context of a situation render the whole thing absolutely, completely, 100 percent "nonsensical" and "idiotic" then you must not enjoy many stories (including ME1). ME3 fails because it doesn't properly display the effects of player choice, because it abandons it's emphasis on character at the most important moment, and because it completely changes the main conflict in the last five minutes. It does not fail because every little detail and logistic isn't entirely explained or made perfect strategetic sense. It would be nice if that were so, sure, but you have to know what battles you can win and the rigors of game development means that sometimes the story is going bend, and you just have to accept that. But there is a line somewhere,and it was at priority Earth that crossed that line, for me and for many others. Again, I already explained why.
[/quote]
I don't enjoy garbage writing, that's for sure.
ME3 fails because it's story being pure nonsense, which dumbed down characters and destroyed overarching series plot.
That is of course only part of the reason, other being horrible dialogues and exposition(like intro) aka bad writing, nonsensical garbage like Citadel coup, autodialogue, fetch quests, reaper-chase minigame(lore-butchering nonsense) etc.
Ending, of course, is a whole other level of garbage writing, but ME3 is already horrible written and horrible designed long before that.
[quote]
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
reapers arrival nullifies overarching series plot
[/quote]

How so?
[/quote]
Reapers just sat in dark space for no reason for a thousands of years of Sovereign's machinations, when they could just fly into a galaxy in 0.5-3 years losing completely nothing.
There is no reason for ME1 to happen because of that, other than reaper deliberately allowed that to happen.
Even without the Catalyst.

[luzburg]

i think mass effect 3 is awesome the ending is alright after the EC